Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
I just had a look at the ESA Position Statement on the economic growth and their Strategies for Achieving Ecologically Sustainable Growth. It's very difficult to believe that ecologists, of all people, composed such a document and, if that's the way a majority of ecologists within the ESA think, then we're really in more trouble than I thought. Sustainable economic growth is simply an impossibility. Economic growth refers to an increase in a country's output (production and consumption) of goods and services usually measured by an increase in real GDP. The key point here is that it is an increase proportional to the amount that was produced before! Therefore, economic growth at a constant rate amounts to exponential growth. But we know through thermodynamics that you can't make something from nothing (nor can you make nothing from something). Since virtually all the goods—including all the goods required to support the services—come directly from ecosystem structure, economic growth is also an increase in throughput, or flow of natural resources, through the economy and back to the environment. When the GDP goes up, invariably an ecosystem somewhere has been appropriated, polluted, or otherwise degraded and, along with it, the biodiversity it holds and the services it provides. Arguments about technological solutions seem suspect here. We are the most technologically advance civilization in the history of humanity and yet the global environment is the most degraded in our history. When is this technology going to kick in? Likely never, so long as economic growth is an imperative. The World Health organization, as part of their contribution to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, concluded: In the 200 years for which we have reliable data, overall growth of consumption has outpaced increased efficiencies in production processes [improved technologies], leading to absolute increases in global consumption of materials and energy [ecosystem resources]. This means that, in practice, economic growth tends to increase consumption of energy and materials. Why doesn’t the ESA position quote this fact-based finding? Instead it selectively quotes one musing of the Brundtland Commission (or one of its members) that “sustainable development…can be consistent with economic growth, provided the content of growth reflects the broad principles of sustainability.” Greening the economy is another myth. Josh Schimel states, The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic growth and development, and yet they reduce human impacts on the world (at least where they replace existing technology). But also, they all involve producing more goods which requires more resources (more than the previous year if economic growth occurs) from some component of ecosystem structure. Imagine the resource requirements to replace the NA vehicle fleet with electric cars. Then try and imagine how the vast increased demand for electricity will be met. As Josh Schimel notes, Other kinds of growth may enhance our well being without degrading the global support system as well, and he's right. But that’s not economic growth. He’s really talking about a qualitative development, and only in one sector. But remember that economic growth, in academia, in the public, in legislatures and administrations, means more production and consumption of goods and services, as indicated by increasing GDP. It is a cumulative measure – it makes no sense to speak of the growth of an automobile sector, a services sector, or a pizza business as “economic growth.” Economic growth occurs only if the aggregated production and consumption is increasing.” And Schimel's truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. are absolutely correct; however, they are *not* to be balanced. (i.e., Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths.) The priority has to be truth 2 and it should be weighted significantly more than truth 1 for without healthy ecosystems providing their life-support services, truth 1 is moot. This is why the concept of a sustainable, steady state economy is important to understand for it addresses the scale of the economy, just distribution of resources (which would address truth 1) and allocation of resources, in that order. We need to solve the macroallocation problem: how much of the Earth's ecosystems must we leave in a natural state to supply the life-support services and how much can we use for throughput to the human economy? Ecologists can play a key role here. I can understand an organization, such as The Wildlife Society or the Association of Professional Biologists of BC, being reluctant to vigorously oppose such an ingrained paradigm as economic growth by
[ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
One problem with this concept of sustainable economic growth is in how it's measured and communicated. Looking back through my economics texts, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the near-universal measure of economic growth (and indeed, GDP growth is still what most politicians and the media are looking to re-start in our current economic condition). That GDP is an extremely poor measure of both environmental sustainability and social well-being is so well established and argued elsewhere that it needs no further explanation here. So if we're trying to get to sustainable economic growth, how do we measure it (certainly not with GDP)? I wouldn't argue that some industries can indeed reduce our levels of resource consumption. But if we're still increasing consumption in the aggregate, our environmental impacts will of course keep growing, even if we shift some consumption into green economic sectors. A term as ill-defined and quite potentially paradoxical as sustainable economic growth requires some real qualifiers. Is corn ethanol sustainable economic growth? Are palm oil plantations that displace tropical rainforest sustainable economic growth? At least economic growth and steady-state economy are well-defined, easily understood terms. Sustainable economic growth, I fear, remains quite open to greenwashing. If we insist on using this term, it would be far preferable to define what it means, how to measure it, and what the consequences of such policies would look like (e.g., reforming GDP accounting, retiring GDP growth as a national policy goal). Ken Bagstad, PhD From: Nadine Lymn nad...@esa.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:46 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: --- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. - The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to your input. The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems (and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make. However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does economic growth necessarily require increased resource consumption and environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types of economic activity actually reduce environmental impact. I think they may be right. The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
There were certainly ESA Board Members who took the time to respond and engage with members of Brian's group, Josh Schimel a shining example among them. Others who I know of that took time to thoughtfully engage were Mary Power, Rob Jackson and Margaret Lowman. Deep thanks to these people for giving Brian's group an ear. What Brian's group of some 70 ESA members wanted, however, was the chance for representation within the group that ESA put together to develop the ESA position statement. That group, ESA reported, consisted of two environmental ecologists and a mathematical ecologist. It was feared that without representation in the ESA group, the original goals of Brian's group, for ESA to make a clear statement from ecological first principles that the world has limits to growth, would become lost. Brian's group believed that only from those starting principles could rationale and equitable policies be derived. ESA maintained that its protocol did not allow for having anyone to represent Brian's group at the discussion table. Personally, I felt that ESA was too protective and cautious in disallowing participation by a member (Brian Czech) who has already established himself as an important player in the field and that excluding such input from an important stakeholder (Brian's initiating group of ESA members) risked a lengthy and perhaps ultimately failed effort to come to consensus on what is arguably the most important issue of our time. Brian's group tried to compensate for this in the only way available - by making postings to ECOLOG-L and responding to the Public Affairs Office's call for input as well as contacting Board Members by phone and email to respectfully weigh in with our criticisms of the draft ESA document. I won't speak for others here, but can say that this input included objections to the draft statement's failure to unambiguously admit limits to economic growth, to its suggestion that economic growth can be sustainable, to the statement's clear environmental economist bias (and, more fundamentally, that anyone with expertise in ecological economics was not included in the drafting group), to the statement's failure to make distinctions between growth (involving quantitative increases in physical sizes or materials fluxes) and development (involving increases in welfare through largely qualitative means that maintain the human economy within the regenerative and assimilative capacity of earth's ecosystems), and to the statement's failure to acknowledge responsibility on the part of developed countries to lead the way toward steady-state development. But such efforts cannot compete with the power afforded by having representation as a member of the drafting group. You've got to have the opportunity for meaningful face to face debate and discussion to have a hope of really persuading someone to your point of view. Perhaps the outcome would have been the same, but at least there would have been the opportunity to find out whether any consensus was possible. Josh is right, position statements are controversial or o/w what's the point of developing them. And while the current ESA position statement is disappointing, I appreciate the back and forth that has occurred over ECOLOG-L, and hope in fact that there is a lot more. Every ecologist must thoroughly study this issue and figure out where they stand on it. It seems a positive thing that the ESA Board is considering writing a piece for the Ecol Bulletin to explain more about how this piece came about and how ESA handles position statements. I hope that an opportunity is afforded Brian's group to write their view, perhaps with some opportunity for some back-and-forth responses. This process could be helpful in (a) further educating ESA about the issues and (b) getting valuable input on whether/how ESA might better handle position statements. Heather Reynolds Associate Professor Department of Biology Jordan Hall 142 Indiana University 1001 E 3rd Street Bloomington IN 47405 Ph: (812) 855-0792 Fax: (812) 855-6705 hlrey...@indiana.edu On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:46 PM, Nadine Lymn wrote: Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was
[ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: --- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. - The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to your input. The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems (and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make. However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does economic growth necessarily require increased resource consumption and environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types of economic activity actually reduce environmental impact. I think they may be right. The development of hybrid cars, solar cells, etc. all involve economic growth and development, and yet they reduce human impacts on the world (at least where they replace existing technology). Other kinds of growth may enhance our well being without degrading the global support system as well. In terms of your specific concern with the term sustainable growth, I would point out that the term we used was ecologically sustainable growth, which to my mind modifies the concept and helps emphasize that such growth may not be based on increased resource consumption, but may be achievable to some degree with technological change. We are taking a term that is accepted in public discourse and trying to turn the supertanker, rather than stopping it in its tracks. So yes, we didn't in the end endorse a document saying that we must abandon the very concept of sustainable growth. But that isn't because we didn't hear, understand, or even agree with many of your arguments. The Board is considering writing a piece for the Ecol Bulletin to explain more about how this piece came about and how ESA handles position statements. They are always controversial because there is no point issuing a statement on a non-controversial topic.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
Dear Nadine/ESA, thank you for your post. I was quite puzzled to read We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. There is no mention of the developed world vis a vis truth no.2 Then, I am doubtful that no.1 can be considered a truth. First world models of development are in most cases inapplicable to the third world. For instance, mechanized agriculture makes sense in the sparsely populated wide open spaces of the new world, while this would render millions of small farmers landless in the third world. Prior development projects ( whether agribusiness or large scale hydroelectric power) have usually benefitted a few, while marginalizing millions. It is the few who now clamor loudest for SUVs, hybrid cars and other material trappings of the west. While hybrid cars are better than SUVs, a mass transit system is far greener on a per capita basis. Improving living conditions in developing countries requires protecting land, water and air resources, providing education and primary healthcare to all, and not just indiscriminately manufacturing more hybrid cars for the haves. Lastly, it should not be the role of ESA to offer a compromise; that is the role of the government. ESA is the premier source for information on ecosystem impacts. Best, Amartya Quoting Nadine Lymn nad...@esa.org: Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: --- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. - The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately, and c) read too economic-speak rather than ecological-speak. I.e. we were concerned about the same core issues you and others were highlighting, partly in response to your input.The current document focuses on the risks to ecological systems (and thus the long-term well being of humanity) and the need to manage them rationally. Those are appropriate messages for ecologists to make. However, and this may be where the apparent disagreements arise: does economic growth necessarily require increased resource consumption and environmental degradation? The economists, at least, argue that some types of economic activity
[ECOLOG-L] ECOSYSTEMS DEGRATION SUSTAINABILITY RESTORATION MANAGEMENT Re: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement
Honorable ESA Board and Ecolog subscribers: Josh Schimel's statement is a work of art. It reflects intellectual integrity of a high order. It is unfortunate that the statement of the individual concerned could not have been paired with it, but it stands alone as the result of careful consideration of some very sticky conundrums and apparent contradictions. It is healthy and just plain good science for such statements to be provisional, as it is important to simultaneously just get it done and to remain open to challenge. If concerned individuals can come up with a better statement, all should be open to it, and gracefully accept it as yet another step in the ongoing yearning of this oddly wonderful form of life to recognize and act upon the effects of its own actions and in so doing act to modify them. The job is done, and well done, but not necessarily finished. But I rest a lot easier knowing that the statement is a carefully considered one. That any organization, especially one with thousands of members, can come up with such a statement is an extremely rare event that reflects well on the quality and commitment of the people so devoted to its principles. I want to thank all concerned for all of the difficult and selfless effort that has obviously gone into the statement, and for their courage in stepping forward in a world in which so much of the current tide flows in the opposite direction. WT PS: Now it is time to roll up some sleeves and get some work done. Setting some priorities for research based on its potential to actually help turn Schimel's supertanker of earth and human destiny in the right direction. A few possible principles and starting points, all of them familiar enough, but familiar too, is the imperfect current state of things. 1. Do no harm. (Ok, do less harm. Degrade ecosystems less.) 2. Hone and polish sustainability in the best possible sense. 3. Restore degraded ecosystems. 4. Manage, first by managing least, second by managing only a sufficient amount to restore ecosystem function, and third and perhaps most important, by giving careful consideration to unfamiliar ideas and counterintuitive thinking--reject and deny with care. The cutting edge often lies beyond the normal distribution. - Original Message - From: Nadine Lymn nad...@esa.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 10:46 AM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Re ESA Position Statement Dear All: In a recent correspondence with an individual concerned about ESA's position statement, ESA Board Member Josh Schimel points out that the Governing Board took very seriously its task of representing 10,000 ecologists and carefully deliberated in issuing the ESA statement. With his permission, I post Josh's correspondence below. Nadine Lymn ESA Director of Public Affairs The ears were not deaf. On the contrary, they were wide open. We heard and agreed with many of the fundamental points Brian, you and others had been making. But those weren't the only messages coming in and we had to balance those different perspectives. The discussion at the Governing Board meeting was extended, thoughtful, and analytical. There are a number of extraordinarily insightful and concerned people on the board. We all agreed that an ESA statement needed to highlight the conflict between two fundamental truths: 1. Humans in the developing world have a moral right to try to improve their well being. 2. There is a finite capacity of the planet to support humans and increasing resource consumption and waste production will degrade the planetary carrying capacity. Thus, we felt that the statement had to argue that we needed to balance those conflicting truths. As ecologists, we can and should focus on the second--managing the carrying capacity, but we can't tell poor people that they may not improve their living conditions. There are ethical boundaries just as there are ecological boundaries. We didn't feel that we could cross one while arguing that we must not cross the other. So, the key front section starts by highlighting that conflict, and personally I think it does it well: --- The Sustainability of Economic Growth At present, economic growth is a double-edged sword: Although it enhances the standards of living in the short-term, it can degrade the ecological infrastructure needed to sustain long-term welfare. This dichotomy may be humanity's central challenge in the 21st century-sustaining living standards and spreading the benefits of economic development to the large fraction of humanity still mired in poverty, while preserving the ecological life-support system on which future welfare depends. - The whole document is a major redraft from the initial one, which many were unhappy with because a) it focused too much on the right to develop, b) didn't emphasize the carrying capacity issues adequately
